Portrait of the average American voter...

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:

What plan did you vote for?

I voted for Harold Ford Jr., but he lost.
It sucks to live in the only state in the ****in Union that hasn't
heard about the Democratic Revolution.

My plan is a bit different than the other plans. It is the "Get the
**** out tomorrow" plan.

I'd call up the Pres. of Pakistan and say, "We're coming for Bin Laden.
You've got 15 minutes to produce him." Oh ****! I'm turning into
William Graham!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
In other words... They had no plan.
If they had an alternative plan, we'd have heard it.

It is unlikely you'd have heard it listening to Rush or FOX News.
You Repugs keep throwing up that strawman that the Dems have no plans,
but the truth is that you just haven't heard them cause you have your
heads buried up Rush and Hannity's asses.

Joe Biden and Harold Ford have essentially the same plan which involves
dividing up Iraq into three states. Biden writes about it he

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082301419.html

But this isn't a plan for democratizing Iraq...This is a plan for dividing
it up into three (or more) different states....And it isn't a new idea,
either....It has been discussed and dismissed as a loser many times in the
past. Ethnic division is a poor way to operate any region....the people need
to marry their technical abilities, and not cower inside their mosks.....War
would be the inevitable result of such a system. It is entirely possible
that Iraq can't be democratized, and that it will eventually be run by some
other tyrant. If that happens, well, it won't be unexpected. but I believe
that democracy is worth a try.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Al Denelsbeck wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in
:

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/69939652/original

You have to love a political party that openly encourages their
members to act like 6-year olds from a trailer park. You just know
I'll be watching Mark Morgan's future posts for such insightful
commentary.

Oh lighten up, Al.
Did you happen to read the description below the image? I have gripes
with voters from ALL sides. All I had to do was stand in line for 40
minutes waiting to vote...and listen to people talking about why they
would vote this or that. It was really pathetic--on BOTH sides.
Stupid Republicans...and stupid Democrats...with some exceptions on both
sides.
The vote becomes so watered down by those who don't even read the ballot
(much less, come in with a working knowledge of ballot
measures/candidates) that the tally is forever doomed to be very near
50-50 in yes/no votes...with rare exception.
Heck, Arizona had a ballot measure this year to create a Million Dollar
prize to be given to a random voter...to get people to the polls!! What a
sad commentary on the "Average American Voter."
-I can't think of a worse idea. All that would do is puch even MORE
yahoos with no basis for an opinion to punch a ballot or push a button.

By the way... What do you think of my little gorilla image?
-Not bad, considering I was shooting through two inches of scratched
glass...

And by the way, Al.
Has it occurred to you that the majority of these gorilla voters...didn't
even vote?
-Likely preferring to sit at home watching Dancing with the Stars, or some
other issue of similarly great national importance.

That's why I like voting here in Oregon....All the ballots are mail-in. Your
mail drop box is your ballot box.....

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

William Graham wrote:

Well, I don't know what you are talking about. What I was talking about
is
the failure of the democrats to come up with their plan for getting us
out
of Iraq.

They have plans. But you'll have to turn the dial to hear them.

Wouldn't you agree that one should have an exit stategy before going to
war?

No. Why would I agree to something like that? You always expect to win any
war, and then, after it's over, you expect to come home. In the case of
Iraq, we expected to win quickly, repair the damage we did, and then come
home. There was no way to predict that roving bands of terrorist groups
would be running around on suicide missions killing innocent people, for
months and months, and that it would be impossible for us to leave cleanly.
As a matter of fact, no one can predict the future, so planning for it is
virtually impossible. Had we known that this is what would happen, we
wouldn't have gone there in the first place. We assumed, (quite naturally)
that most of the people would be happier living free under a Democratic
system, and would be able to handle their own crime rate effectively after
some short period of training and acclamation. Certainly the Democrats
couldn't have predicted otherwise either......So, now what?

Shouldn't it be "incumbent" upon the incumbents to come up with a plan
since they got us into this quagmire? It's odd that we've been over
there in Iraq 3.5 years and the Dems haven't even taken office yet, and
yet you Repugs are whining like little bitches that "The Dems don't
have a plan!"

What we are whining about is the Democrats insistence that we should have
some way of getting rid of these terrorist bands of suicide bombers, so we
can come home, when they don't know what to do about them any more than we
do. If you are going to bitch about the way something is being run, then it
is incumbent upon you to be able to run it better, or, at least, give those
who are running it some useful advice other than, "You guys don't have a
plan!" Of course we don't have a plan.....Neither do you. or you would have
told Bush about it by now, and he would have implemented it, and we'd all be
sitting here fat and happy. Frankly, I wish Bush would step down, and give
the reins to some Democrat, just to see what he would do. Obviously, he/she
wouldn't be able to do anything but say, "Well, Bush got us into this mess,
and now he expects me to get us out!" I am sure glad that I don't have to
run for president in 2008, I can tell you that!

Right. With her plan, if you were rich, and needed a heart operation, and
you hired the chief cardiologist at the Mayo clinic to do it for you, you
would be thrown in jail. (and so would the cardiologist) And my self paid
health insurance, that I scraped and saved for for 40 years would be
worthless....the Robin Hooders would trash it, and steal money from me and
give it to Hillary to pay for the poor.......And they ask me why I am a
Republican........

So your plan is to let the poor die for lack of
care and the Hillary plan is to make the rich take a ticket? Might not
work. Bob Hickey

"Bob Hickey" wrote in message
news:5ob5h.1593$T_.407@trndny06...

Right. With her plan, if you were rich, and needed a heart operation, and
you hired the chief cardiologist at the Mayo clinic to do it for you, you
would be thrown in jail. (and so would the cardiologist) And my self paid
health insurance, that I scraped and saved for for 40 years would be
worthless....the Robin Hooders would trash it, and steal money from me
and
give it to Hillary to pay for the poor.......And they ask me why I am a
Republican........

So your plan is to let the poor die for lack of
care and the Hillary plan is to make the rich take a ticket? Might not
work. Bob Hickey


My, "plan" is as old as life on earth. It's called, "survival of the
fittest". In it's modern day form, it involves saving for one's future, so
you won't have to depend on the charity of others when you are too old or
sick to work. There are a number of modern day institutions that enable one
to do this. Insurance is one of them. Company retirement plans, and IRA's
are another. Should there be any Government operated plans? - Well, a true
libertarian like me would say no. Anything the government can do, a private
corporation can do better. (and a lot more efficiently) But, if you insist,
I would go for a government fund to pay for people who are born defective,
or who, by accident, become that way through no fault of their own. Private
funds could do this, but what the hell, it wouldn't hurt to throw the
socialists a bone now and then. But I definitely won't go for the government
operating a universal health insurance scam that directly competes with
perfectly good private health insurance. Why should my tax dollars pay for
your health, when you are capable of buying your own health insurance? - You
don't ask me to buy your food, and you could starve to death without food.
You don't ask me to buy your house, and you could freeze to death without a
house. - Or clothes, or transportation, or any of a dozen other things that
are basically, in a modern society, necessities. So why separate out health,
and consider it so important that the government has to subsidize it, and
screw it up like they do everything else they have put their rotten fingers
in?
What I am saying is, why take health care away from industry, and give
it to the government? What is the justification for this? If our industry
can build a better car or computer, why don't you think that it can build a
better hospital or medical school? And why do you think that either of these
things have to be government subsidized?

Mark² wrote:

Ken Tough wrote:
There were deliberate lies in the lead-up/spin-up to the Iraq
invasion, including the utter and completely fabricated rubbish
about Iraq trying to obtain nuclear "yellow cake" materials from
Niger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear
ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to
make his case for war, the BBC has learned.

To everyone's benefit, the internet means it's harder these days
for spiders to escape from their tangled webs.

Bush makes no bones about the fact that he relies heavily on those around
him.
Certainly there are liars in Washington, and in both parties. I'm not
convinced GWB is one of them...though he may well have become the mouthpiece
of some.

The buck stops with him, always. Those around Bush were schooled
by the Nixon experience, and we know that these days when nefarious
deeds are to originate in the West Wing, it's useful for the boss
not to (be seen to) hear. [e.g. the astonishing crime to come out
of the West Wing, that a covert agent's cover was deliberately blown
over the Niger incident. Nixon had a "plumber's" operation to stop
leaks, but a few burglers was nothing compared to this.]

No, the President is the head of them all.

He is head of the forces, and the CIA reports to him. When he makes a
speech which sends the country to war, invades another nation, condemns
100,000+ people to die, and costs the world $1,000,000,000,000, the
onus is on him to make sure he's not talking a load of crap when he
spouts reasons for doing it.

If he is merely incompetent, as you imply, it is all the more reason
that he should be immediately impeached.


--
Ken Tough

Walter Banks wrote:

What was the Republican response to 9-11.

1) They let the leader of the attack get away

...

What about the biological weapons of mass destruction? No, I don't
mean the mythical Iraqi ones, I mean the ones used against americans
-in the US-, -including on the Capitol-, killing several and causing
a crisis.

No one remembers the weaponized anthrax for some reason.

Terrorists were posting the stuff through the mail system, and yet
there has been nary a single whisper of it. (BUT WE'RE AT WAR!)
How is it that this dangerous terrorist act went completely
uninvestigated? Did everyone look into the little red flash,
or what?

Anthrax people. Anthrax! Remember? Surely!

[Hmm. Something is a little bit odd in this situation.]


--
Ken Tough

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:12:25 GMT, Ken Tough
wrote:


If he is merely incompetent, as you imply, it is all the more reason
that he should be immediately impeached.


Not only incompetent but unspeakably arrogant.
Consider Dubya's actions in the three days since
the election:


1. Admitted with a straight face that he lied about Rummy.
Last week he told us Rummy was here to stay. The day
after the election he said, no not really. I "had" to say that.

2. Replaced Rummy with Robert Gray, a Bush family
"fixer" and a man who was nearly indicted in the Iran-
Contra scandals. A man with a record of sucking up
to power and bending the intelligence to match the
executive's whim. IOW, he offers us a Rummy clone.

3. Despite talk of "bipartisanship," sent John Bolton's
nomination to Congress for a third time, knowing full
well that Bolton is loathed by *all* Democrats and a
good number of Republicans as well. Twice on
prior occasions, a *Republican-controlled* Congress
has failed to nominate Bolton, and so Dubya, in
typical contempt for any restraints on his power
and privelege, appointed Bolten in recess. He's
currently exploring other ways to circumvent the
confirmation process.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

William Graham wrote:

All valid comments....But just don't say that he is an evil genius who went
into Iraq in order to steal oil for all his crooked buddies....The two
points of view just aren't compatible......He's either a clueless simpleton,
or an evil genius, but he can't be both at the same time....:^)


Ok, how's about "He's a clueless simpleton who was used as a front man
by evil geniuses."? I note the neocons who made war attractive to him
are now distancing themselves at a very rapid pace. Bush has done his
part and may now be thrown aside.

What will the US do now that their President hasn't spoken directly to
God for MONTHS? Perhaps I misunderestimate him.





mike